+- IRSE Exam Forum (https://irse.signalpost.org)
+-- Forum: MODULES (https://irse.signalpost.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Module 3 (https://irse.signalpost.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+---- Forum: Control Tables- Past Papers (https://irse.signalpost.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=105)
+----- Forum: 2003 (https://irse.signalpost.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=114)
+----- Thread: Still about my point CT (/showthread.php?tid=635)
Still about my point CT - greensky52 - 08-09-2010
I do not know why I can not reply to my thread for those 2 days. Any bug with the web?
Following questions are related to your reply to the point CT
1."I would not have had EC locking 212 from R to N
I would have made the locking of 212 from N to R include (EC or 211N)"
Why? Could you give some reasons?
2."You included 134A(M/W/C) and 107E(M); I don't think I would. Ask yourself: if train routed up to 133, why shouldn't 305A(S) be set or alternatively 307A(S) be set?- so perhaps 212 should be left free."
Confused about this... any further explanation?
3?I have read your comments to Alex's work. http://www.irseexam.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=89
In Approach locking, he has the entry
RE: Still about my point CT - PJW - 08-09-2010
(08-09-2010, 02:51 PM)greensky52 Wrote: I do not know why I can not reply to my thread for those 2 days. Any bug with the web?Not as far as I know- others have posted.
Away from home at present; it'll be better for me to have access to drawings rather than risk reply from memory so will reply later.
RE: Still about my point CT - greensky52 - 11-09-2010
Ok, thanks. Waiting for your reply~
(08-09-2010, 05:27 PM)PJW Wrote:(08-09-2010, 02:51 PM)greensky52 Wrote: I do not know why I can not reply to my thread for those 2 days. Any bug with the web?Not as far as I know- others have posted.
Away from home at present; it'll be better for me to have access to drawings rather than risk reply from memory so will reply later.
RE: Still about my point CT - PJW - 11-09-2010
(11-09-2010, 01:06 PM)greensky52 Wrote: Ok, thanks. Waiting for your reply~1. Note that there is an error in one version of the plan (the one with a single Locomotive siding) in that there should be IRJ between 211A and 211B. EC should therefore lock 211; if 211N then we can use 212 either way and it is clear.
(08-09-2010, 05:27 PM)PJW Wrote:(08-09-2010, 02:51 PM)greensky52 Wrote: I do not know why I can not reply to my thread for those 2 days. Any bug with the web?Not as far as I know- others have posted.
Away from home at present; it'll be better for me to have access to drawings rather than risk reply from memory so will reply later.
2. Your locking is restrictive- by locking the points you stop the signaller simultaneously using routes that could be safely set.
3.When place 114 to Red then 118 to Yellow and need to take tracks at least as far back as sighting point so CM, CN, CP must feature. Since 118 is a controlled signal then the tracks on its approach should be conditioned out by that signal being free of approach locking.
Therefore CM, CN (CP or 118 ARAFOAL)
Alex didn't condition out the A/L and also included CR- I think that he may have thought this was necessary due to "tunnel controls applied to signal 122". To me this means that 122 held to red if 118 is at red unless 114 off; this in a sense extends the aspect sequence back from 114 but although this would generally affect the extent of A/L lookback, not needed in this case as there would be an intervening train that would fail the lookback anyway